Law discussion - incidents, S14, Wk13

It’s hard to believe that the Super 14 has already reached Week 13. It has flown by but not so quickly that we do not have points of law to discuss to keep our knowledge sharp. Imagine how tedious it must be to follow a game whose laws/rules are simple!

We have already given some match statistics, mostly about getting possession.

We shall add to our stats on the scrum laws tomorrow.

Our first incident is a classic example. It comes up in law exams over and over. suddenly here it is as clear as can be.

1. Evans cuddles the padding

Nick Evans of the Highlanders darts at the line. Piri Weepu of the Hurricanes tackles him. With the ball in his grasp Evans snuggles up to the padding on the goal post. The ball is on the ground and against the padding.

The referee awards the try.

Right?

Yes. It was a perfect example of its class.

Law 22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY

(b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding it are part of the goal-line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored.

To be grounded the ball must be in contact with the ground.

Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

In this case the ball is in contact with the ground and the post.

2. Out of the tunnel

Near touch on his left, Moa Taniela of the Blues, on while Steven Devine was off bleeding, feeds the ball into a Blues scrum and suddenly Fourie du Preez of the Bulls is racing away with the ball. As two Blues come to tackle him, he pops the ball inside to Pedrie Wannenburg who scores a try.

How did Du Preez get it?

Taniela put the ball in. It could not be considered straight, but that is not the purpose of our discussion on a weekend when no scrumhalf, apparently, put the ball in skew. The ball struck a member of the Blues front row and came straight out of the tunnel of the scrum where Du Preez picked it up.

Can advantage apply in such circumstances?

Law 8.3 (b) Ball out of tunnel. Advantage must not be applied when the ball comes out of either end of the tunnel at a scrum without having been played.

The ball was played before it came out, which means that advantage could apply.

3. Whose ball, Mr Ref?

George Pisi of the Blues kicks ahead and chases. Fourie du Preez of the Bulls catches the ball. Pisi immediately tackles Du Preez and they go to ground. Troy Flavell falls on them and the referee immediately blows the whistle making a catching movement with his arms and giving the ball to the Bulls.

Right?

Not really.

That business of the of the swamped catcher who gets the ball applies only to the maul – not to the ruck or the tackle. What we had here is a tackle. The award of the scrum then has nothing to do with catching the ball.

Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.

If a maul moves into the player’s in-goal, where the ball is touched down or becomes unplayable, a 5-metre scrum is formed. The attacking team throws in the ball.

This was not a maul, just a tackle. The law for awarding the scrum is different.

Law 14.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY

If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.

There is nothing in this about the catcher of a kicked ball.

4. Undropped drop

Gary Botha of the Bulls kicks the ball down into the Blues’ in-goal where Doug Howlett touches down and then throws the ball up for the drop out. The Blues pass it along the 22 to Tony Woodcock. Woodcock puts the ball on the ground. He taps the ball with his foot, picks it up and starts a move which ends in a try for the Blues.

The Laws define a drop kick: Drop Kick – the ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it rises from its first bounce.

Woodcock did not drop the ball from his hands. He put it on the ground. It did not rise. Even if he did kick the ball he was not entitled to play on, as it was not a drop.

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN

If the ball is kicked by the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:

To have another drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

Is it pedantic to pull up a thing like this?

Not really, because the law requires a drop kick and Woodcock got an advantage by doing what he did.

5. Spectators’ off-side

We have two examples from the match between the Brumbies and the Crusaders.

a. Mose Tuiali’i of the Crusaders has the ball and attempts to advance. He is tackled and as he goes down he passes the ball back in the hope of finding his support. But instead Stephen Hoiles catches the ball and sets the Brumbies on the attack.

There was no ruck or maul. Even if it was a tackle there is no off-side line at a tackle. It was general play and an opponent had last played the ball, which means that Hoiles was not off-side.

b. Stephen Hoiles of the Brumbies tackles Kevin Senio of the Crusaders. They both go to ground, Hoiles holding Senio. (That means that there has been a tackle in terms of the law.)

Senio plays the ball back and Mose Tuiali’i picks it up and surges ahead. Hoiles rises to his feet and tackles Tuiali’i.

Is he allowed to do so?

Very much so.

He was not off-side because a tackle does not produce an off-side line. He did not have to come “through the gate” because he was the tackler. He was on his feet when he tackled Tuiali’i and so he was entitled to play.

6. Carried back

Naas Olivier of the Stormers kicks the ball downfield. Clinton Schifcofske of the Reds goes back to collect the ball. He gathers the bouncing ball outside of his 22 and then runs back with it inside his 22 where, under pressure from Olivier and Corne Uys. Schifcofske kicks the ball directly out into touch.

Where will the line-out be?

Where the ball went out? On the 22? Where he kicked?

Law 19.1 (b) Player takes ball into that team’s 22. When a defending player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22, and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.

That means that the line-out will be opposite the place where Schifcofske kicked the ball.

7. Accidental off-side

The Chiefs are under pressure in Sydney. Near his goal-line Sitiveni Sivivatu passes a long way infield to Mils Muliaina as Sam Norton-Knight makes for Muliaina. Muliaina just evades Norton-Knight who touches him, bumps into Tane Tu’ipulotu. Swivelling round, Norton-Knight gets round Tu’ipulotu to grab Muliaina as Rocky Elsom approaches.

The referee blows for accidental off-side.

Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFF-SIDE

(a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

The commentator has a look at the slow motion replay and then says in deliberate tones of greater infallibility than any pope has claimed: “That’s a poor decision from the referee. It didn’t affect the player. The player who would have made the tackle made the tackle. He actually got an advantage over the defending player. If he’d not into his own player, he’d’ve been off.”

The other commentator: “That’s where the law needs a bit of emending.”

Hindsight encourages infallibility. But it’s hard to see what amending the law needs. It allows play to go on if a ball-carrier makes contact with a team-mate in front of him provided that he does not gain from it. In this case the referee had to work out whether Muliaina gained an advantage from Tu’ipulotu’s presence in front of him. It seemed possible as Norton-Knight had to get back round Tu’ipulotu to get to Muliaina. And he had no hindsight to help him.

Whether or not Muliaina was hampered is not relevant. It is the would-be tackler who is relevant.